Winn v. Commissioner, Social Security Administration
Filing
30
OPINION & ORDER: The Court grants Defendant's Motion to Alter or Amend Judgment 25 . The Commissioner's decision is reversed and remanded for additional proceedings. See 4-page opinion & order attached. Ordered by Judge Marco A. Hernandez. (mr)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON
ANGELICA C. WINN,
Plaintiff,
v.
CAROLYN COLVIN,
Acting Commissioner of Social Security,
Defendant.
Drew L. Johnson
DREW L. JOHNSON, P.C.
1700 Valley River Drive
Eugene, OR 97405
Kathryn Tassinari
HARDER, WELLS, BARON & MANNING, P.C.
474 Willamette, Suite 200
Eugene, OR 97401
Attorneys for Plaintiff
1 - OPINION & ORDER
No. 6:14-cv-00564-HZ
OPINION & ORDER
Billy J. Williams
Acting United States Attorney, District of Oregon
Ronald K. Silver
Assistant United States Attorney
U.S. ATTORNEY’S OFFICE, DISTRICT OF OREGON
1000 SW Third Avenue, Suite 600
Portland, OR 97204
Alexis L. Toma
SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION
Office of the General Counsel
701 Fifth Avenue, Suite 2900 M/S 221A
Seattle, WA 98104
Attorneys for Defendant
HERNÁNDEZ, District Judge:
On November 4, 2010, Plaintiff Angelica Winn applied for Disability Insurance Benefits
(DIB) under Title II of the Social Security Act. The Commissioner of Social Security denied
Plaintiff’s application. Tr. 101-107. On September 25, 2012, Plaintiff appeared, with counsel, for
a hearing before an Administrative Law Judge (ALJ). Tr. 36-78. On December 27, 2012, the ALJ
found Plaintiff not disabled. Tr. 12-23. The Appeals Council denied review. Tr. 1-4. Plaintiff
sought judicial review of the Commissioner’s denial of benefits.
On April 21, 2015, this Court entered an Opinion & Order reversing the Commissioner’s
decision and remanding the case pursuant to sentence four of 42 U.S.C. 405(g) for an immediate
award of benefits. Opinion & Order, April 21, 2015, ECF 22. A Judgment was entered in favor
of Plaintiff on that same date. Judgment, April 21, 2015, ECF 23.
The Commissioner now moves to alter or amend the Judgment pursuant to Rule 59(e) of
the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Familiarity with this Court’s prior Opinion & Order is
presumed. The Court grants the Commissioner’s motion.
2 - OPINION & ORDER
STANDARD
Amendment of a judgment is appropriate under Rule 59(e) if “(1) the district court is
presented with newly discovered evidence, (2) the district court committed clear error or made
an initial decision that was manifestly unjust, or (3) there is an intervening change in controlling
law.” DiRaffael v. California Military Dep't, 593 F. App'x 679, 680 (9th Cir. 2015) (quoting
Zimmerman v. City of Oakland, 255 F.3d 734, 740 (9th Cir. 2001).
DISCUSSION
This Court conducted a careful review of its prior Opinion & Order as well as the full
administrative record in this case. The Court concludes that it committed clear error in ordering
that the case be remanded for an award of benefits.
The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has devised a three-part credit-as-true standard, each
part of which must be satisfied in order for a court to remand to an ALJ with instructions to
calculate and award benefits:
(1) the ALJ has failed to provide legally sufficient reasons for rejecting evidence, whether
claimant testimony or medical opinion;
(2) the record has been fully developed and further administrative proceedings would
serve no useful purpose; and
(3) if the improperly discredited evidence were credited as true, the ALJ would be
required to find the claimant disabled on remand.
Treichler v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec. Admin., 775 F.3d 1090, 1100-01 (9th Cir. 2014).
Upon further consideration of this case, the Court determines that the second prong of the
credit-as-true standard has not been met. The Court remands the case in order for the ALJ to
further develop the record as to the impact of the frequency of Plaintiff’s syncopal episodes on
her ability to work. See id. at 1101 (“Where there is conflicting evidence, and not all essential
factual issues have been resolved, a remand for an award of benefits is inappropriate.”).
3 - OPINION & ORDER
CONCLUSION
The Court grants Defendant’s Motion to Alter or Amend Judgment [25]. The
Commissioner’s decision is reversed and remanded for additional proceedings.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated this ________ day of __________________, 2015
MARCO A. HERNÁNDEZ
United States District Judge
4 - OPINION & ORDER
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?